I've Just Donned My Virtual Ranting Bonnet

[gothrockrulz]

Yes, you read that right. B-O-N-N-E-T.

In this ONTD post about disappointing authors, boomstick disses Jane Austen in a way that I really can't wrap my mind around. As a huge Jane Austen fan, I'm seriously displeased. (Virtual cookies for anybody who can tell me which Jane Austen character I just quoted.) I'm not a member of the LJ community, so I can't comment. I'm not too keen on joining, so I'll post my thoughts here instead.



The part relating to Miss Austen begins splendidly.

Let me start by admitting that I'm not a huge Austen fan.

Oh, really? Then how can she disappoint you, if you're next door to indifferent in the first place?

I've always seen her work as tarted up bodice ripper material.

You can't be serious. You just can't. You've got to be kidding or trolling or something.

Name ONE INSTANCE in which a bodice was ripped in a Jane Austen novel. Guess what? THERE ISN'T ONE! How many bodice rippers have you read or watched in which all bodices remained intact throughout the whole story? Honestly, what misleading summary of her novels have you read? Most people, who actually read her work, complain because everything is just too prim and proper for them. (Their loss, by the way.)

Because Austen's smarts crackle through her writing, I honestly believed that her rise to publication glory was as smooth and inexorable as her prose. I imagined her putting pen to paper one morning and delivering the complete draft of Sense and Sensibility to an enraptured publisher, error and revision free, about two weeks later.

Um, have you ever tried to write a flawless novel in two weeks? Have you heard of anyone writing a flawless novel in two weeks? I'm really trying to be civil here, but I have to say, you're either a troll or a complete nutter. I'm thinking troll here.

Austen’s first book - Northanger Abbey – failed spectacularly to make any mark on the reading public. In fact, it was so crap it didn't even make it into print. Intended as a pisstake of the gothic melodramas which were wildly popular at the time, Austen's first work failed to hit either a satirical or a romantic target. She sold Northanger Abbey to a bookseller cum publisher in 1803 where it languished on the slush pile, unpublished, for almost ten years. And there it would probably have stayed if Austen's brother Henry hadn't bought the book back after the death of his sister and brought it out posthumously as part of a series.

Oh, gee, that's just AWFUL. No famous author ever wrote anything that even came close to touching the slush pile. She's a complete disgrace, and I should never read a word of her work again. All because somebody on LJ, whom I'm assuming is NOT a published novelist whose work has been beloved all over the world for over two hundred years, tells me that Jane Austen is disappointing.

Yeah, right.

By the way, Northanger Abbey is probably one of the most brilliant gothic satires out there. Here are snippets from the first chapter, for example.

No one who had ever seen Catherine Morland in her infancy would have supposed her born to be an heroine. Her situation in life, the character of her father and mother, her own person and disposition, were all equally against her. Her father was a clergyman, without being neglected, or poor, and a very respectable man . . . and he was not in the least addicted to locking up his daughters. Her mother was a woman of useful plain sense, with a good temper, and, what is more remarkable, with a good constitution. She had three sons before Catherine was born; and instead of dying in bringing the latter into the world, as anybody might expect, she still lived on — lived to have six children more — to see them growing up around her, and to enjoy excellent health herself . . . At present she [Catherine] did not know her own poverty, for she had no lover . . . She had reached the age of seventeen, without having seen one amiable youth who could call forth her sensibility, without having inspired one real passion, and without having excited even any admiration but what was very moderate and very transient. This was strange indeed! But strange things may be generally accounted for if their cause be fairly searched out. There was not one lord in the neighbourhood; no — not even a baronet. There was not one family among their acquaintance who had reared and supported a boy accidentally found at their door — not one young man whose origin was unknown. Her father had no ward, and the squire of the parish no children.

But when a young lady is to be a heroine, the perverseness of forty surrounding families cannot prevent her. Something must and will happen to throw a hero in her way.

How can anyone read all that delicious tongue-in-cheek description of an unlikely heroine and call it crap? It's long-winded, yes, even after I chopped a few words out here and there--but guess what? That's how everybody with an education wrote back then--even "suppressed" women that weren't permitted to attend colleges and universities. You really can't judge a classic book by modern standards. Just because it's not written in the streamlined, edgy style many writers and publishers favor today doesn't mean it has no worth.

And here I had thought Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was maddening . . . Oh, wait! It still is.

Okay, I think it's time to close; I'm getting too worked up over this. I'll tack on an appropriate GIF I found on tumblr and find something productive to do.

Comments

[rhoda-rants.livejournal.com]

Now, I know next to nothing about Austen, but this right here:

"She sold Northanger Abbey to a bookseller cum publisher in 1803 where it languished on the slush pile, unpublished, for almost ten years."

...that's just Critical Research Failure. If something is "languish[ing] on the slush pile," it, by definition, has not been "sold." I mean, really.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

Yep. Somebody really wasn't thinking things through . . .

[rhoda-rants.livejournal.com]

And another thing--GETTING PUBLISHED IS FUCKING HARD WORK. It can take decades even if you are a genius, and being female at the same time in the era Austen was writing in would've made it that much harder. Taking a long damn while to get a first novel picked up is really not unusual. Like, at all.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

Taking a long damn while to get a first novel picked up is really not unusual. Like, at all.

Agreed. I wish it was easy, but it isn't. We can't count on a lucky break that costs minimum effort.

[pearlessence.livejournal.com]

LADY CATHERINE DE BOURGH! Pay up, I want my cookie. xDD

I can't abide anyone dissing Jane Austen (I will forever have a grudge against Mark Twain for that very reason). I read all her novels during one whirlwind summer when I was fifteen and have loved her madly ever since. Anyone who can't appreciate her sparkling wit and dazzling satire is only waving around their own ignorance for all the world to see. A dullard looks at Austen's novels and sees only romance novels - they are brilliant social commentaries that happen to include elements of romance.

This dullard seems to have ignored social context, too. Women writers had it extremely tough for years - most had to publish their novels at their own expense, like the Bronte sisters did. The fact that Jane Austen's novels were not immediately published is no reflection on her talent, or lack thereof; it's a reflection of the time she lived in. Women were expected to fit a certain mold, one that did not really include writing; and if they did write, they were expected to produce a certain type of writing. Jane Austen was fighting more than just the regular publishing battle; she was fighting the expectations of women at the time as well. It was with the help of one of her brothers that she finally received decent attention from a publisher, which says a lot about late 18th/early 19th century gender equality.

Bah to dullards everywhere who can't appreciate genius. I'm so glad you love Miss Austen. ;D

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

*showers you with virtual cookies* Good one! XD

A dullard looks at Austen's novels and sees only romance novels - they are brilliant social commentaries that happen to include elements of romance.

Amen! Preach it!

The fact that Jane Austen's novels were not immediately published is no reflection on her talent, or lack thereof; it's a reflection of the time she lived in. Women were expected to fit a certain mold, one that did not really include writing; and if they did write, they were expected to produce a certain type of writing. Jane Austen was fighting more than just the regular publishing battle; she was fighting the expectations of women at the time as well. It was with the help of one of her brothers that she finally received decent attention from a publisher, which says a lot about late 18th/early 19th century gender equality.

You're absolutely right. I am glad, though, that her brother did everything he could to help. Shows his head was in the right place, at least. :)

[quiesscent.livejournal.com]

Sadly I've only been able to read Pride and Prejudice, but t was by far one of the best books I've ever read. The language and story telling is just so rich and colorful and just gorgeous overall. It's a masterpiece and I wish I could read everything else she ever wrote. Unfortunately books here are a luxury and I've never been fond of virtual ones, but someday I will buy them all mwahaha LOL.

Srsly, insufferable is the right thing to say all right, all right XD

It's clear to me, that...person there is nothing but a troll OR someone extremely ignorant who probably thinks the TV guide is the best "book" ever written.

One clearly has to know and understand the time she lived in and when she wrote all her pieces, was very different, and also, it takes a much more intelligent and cultured person than the one who dissed her, to understand and fully enjoy her work.

And complaining about them being prim and proper is such nonsense. I think it's a shame that parts of the customs from back then have been lost. Like the wooing and romanticism AND proper chivarly. That's very romantic and very refreshing break from an age where everything has to have sex and stuff like that in order to be considered good. *sigh* Not everything has to have vampires or violence to be a great book =/. I think people these days forget that and hence don't know how to appreciate a superb author like Jane Austen.

[gothrockrulz.livejournal.com]

It's a masterpiece and I wish I could read everything else she ever wrote. Unfortunately books here are a luxury and I've never been fond of virtual ones, but someday I will buy them all mwahaha LOL.

Yes, the only thing keeping us bookworms from filling our houses to the brim with good books is our empty wallets. >.<

And complaining about them being prim and proper is such nonsense.

I concur! ;) I actually enjoy books more when they don't have content I have to worry about my little sister reading over my shoulder. But then, of course, my personality veers more toward the prim and proper, so that's probably why I'm cool with it. :D

I'd LOVE it if good customs from the olden days were adopted once more. Sure, not everything old is ideal, but what's wrong with resurrecting chivalry and good breeding/manners? It certainly won't hurt anyone.